2014 hottest year on record

[Henning]

Hmmmm...

So, the alteration of the climate in NOT( man made ) but created by natural events that we have NO control over.. ......

No, it's not either or, **** me dead, it's the composite total of everything of which we also contribute. Again, the cause is irrelevant, the result will be the same regardless. The only difference we can make at this point is delay when the climate will snap back by reducing our component. Realistically though, it's likely just a waste of time, the chances of humanity becoming enlightened to the point required will require a true miracle.

 

[azure]

t

What the experiment demonstrates that is relevant today, is that there is no additional heating from re-radiation. That is the main cause of the Greenhouse Effect, correct?

It's not "additional heating". Some of the escaping radiation is blocked, so the energy is kept inside. How that energy reaches the surface is another question.

Why not spend $100 out the billions being spent to disprove it?

Maybe because these experiments don't prove anything about the real greenhouse effect in the atmosphere?

 

[Fearless Tower]

No, it's not either or, **** me dead, it's the composite total of everything of which we contribute. Again, the cause is irrelevant, the result will be the same regardless. The only difference we can make at this point is delay when the climate will snap back by reducing our component. Realistically though, it's likely just a waste of time, the chances of humanity becoming enlightened to the point required will require a true miracle.

So, since you are so passionate about it....when you gonna stop buying products from Asia???

 

[vintage cessna]

No, they have high confidence that (a) the physics behind the models is essentially correct and (b) despite the differences in assumptions between them, they all (AFAIK) predict measurable warming.

As in, you make the temps a function of the CO2 level without putting any physics in? That would be GIGO. You really have to think the people doing this stuff are complete frauds to believe that's what is going on.

I'm not convinced he's proven anything, much less what you say the current explanation of the greenhouse effect is. If anything, he's quite inadvertently shown that radiation trapping IS significant even in a greenhouse. But I'd have to read the rest of his article to be sure about that.

I guess there has been a new logic that has evolved in science. We have computer models, they have never been correct, but we should make decisions based on the model predictions.

So no warming in the past 17 years. Is there a problem with the model? Nope. Mother Earth just taking a break for a while. Oh , OK, worried for a moment that it might be another bad prediction. One excuse after another. It is like the Monty Python routine with the dead parrot.

 

[vintage cessna]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=npjOSLCR2hE

Climate scientist bird shop

 

[Henning]

So, since you are so passionate about it....when you gonna stop buying products from Asia???

Whenever I have a choice, as individuals it's the only leverage we have. Not until large enough quantities of people do so will there be a change.

 

[vintage cessna]

It's not "additional heating". Some of the escaping radiation is blocked, so the energy is kept inside. How that energy reaches the surface is another question.

Maybe because these experiments don't prove anything about the real greenhouse effect in the atmosphere?

Your theory says the greenhouse gases absorb infared radiation and re emit the radition back out, some to outer space some back towards Earth. Is that not correct?

 

[N801BH]

Whenever I have a choice, as individuals it's the only leverage we have. Not until large enough quantities of people do so will there be a change.

As Henning sits there typing the responses on his IPad... That is MADE in China......

Hey Vanna... Can I buy the word.... IRONY.......

 

[Henning]

As Henning sits there typing the responses on his IPad... That is MADE in China......

Hey Vanna... Can I buy the word.... IRONY.......

Exactly, there is no choice, that's not ironic, that's just sad.

 

[azure]

Your theory says the greenhouse gases absorb infared radiation and re emit the radition back out, some to outer space some back towards Earth. Is that not correct?

Strictly speaking it depends on where in the atmosphere we're talking about. Down in the lower troposphere the GHGs transfer most of that absorbed energy to the atmosphere via collisions. High enough up, yes they're able to get rid of it by radiating and some of the radiation goes into space -- that's the planet's outgoing IR radiation that satellites can measure. Most - I'm pretty sure nearly all - of what goes back downward from up there is absorbed again (by other GHG molecules) before it reaches the surface.

Like I said earlier, "heating by re-radiation" is an oversimplification. Not sure why you're hung up on that, since the main point is that some of the radiant energy from the surface that would otherwise go straight into space is trapped. Some of it does indeed warm the surface - more by convection I think, not so much by radiation.

 

[N801BH]

Exactly, there is no choice, that's not ironic, that's just sad.

Agreed......

 

[LDJones]

I believe you are confusing the average temp in Antartica, which is -58, with the Artic. We have big variations in Artic ice because the North Pole is covered with Ocean, and profoundly influenced by ocean currents. While the South Pole, where ice is growing, is covered by a massive land continent, and ocean currents have much less effect. The Antartic will remain frozen for tens of thousand of years until we emerge from the current ice age, which has lasted now about 65 million years.

No confusion. Henning's comment was about Antarctic glaciers.

 

[LDJones]

The energy level of the climate is increasing, volcanoes in Indonesia are feeding a major imbalance in energy creating a spate of the strongest typhoons in history. That combined energy that is being supported along the way north to the cold low energy end at the pole by China drives this Polar Vortex pattern further and further south. All this while sending the warming energy of hurricanes out to sea. Perhaps the US will be destroyed in a localized mini ice age and Asia will be spared. The Buddhist influence in Asia took hold where the Chistian try failed the west.

Since the Earth has been warming for a few hundred years and warmer water might contribute to stronger typhoons, you may be right. But that still does nothing to prove man is a major factor in it. That's the part that is pure speculation. CO2 levels go up with warming as oceans outgas CO2. We don't even know what portion of the 80 ppm increase we've seen is from us vs. from the oceans. Regardless, that's an itty-bitty portion of the GHG in our atmosphere.

 

[Henning]

Since the Earth has been warming for a few hundred years and warmer water might contribute to stronger typhoons, you may be right. But that still does nothing to prove man is a major factor in it. That's the part that is pure speculation. CO2 levels go up with warming as oceans outgas CO2. We don't even know what portion of the 80 ppm increase we've seen is from us vs. from the oceans. Regardless, that's an itty-bitty portion of the GHG in our atmosphere.

It's irrelevant, we are arguing that it doesn't exist by adding arguments about personalities. That just wastes an extra decade of zero action. That we have no fact is just a lie we tell ourselves so we won't have to blame ourselves for the suffering of the few future generations left.

 

[LDJones]

It's irrelevant, we are arguing that it doesn't exist by adding arguments about personalities. That just wastes an extra decade of zero action. That we have no fact is just a lie we tell ourselves so we won't have to blame ourselves for the suffering of the few future generations left.

More B.S. Even the alarmists admit we could shut down fossil fuel use today and it MIGHT save .3 degrees of warming over the next 100 years.

In another twenty years we'll look back on this and laugh at it for the stupidity it is.

 

[vintage cessna]

More B.S. Even the alarmists admit we could shut down fossil fuel use today and it MIGHT save .3 degrees of warming over the next 100 years.

In another twenty years we'll look back on this and laugh at it for the stupidity it is.

Not if we let them get away with something stupid now. I have to admire the courage of the scientists who have stood up and defended scientific principle.

 

[German guy]

You might want to have a look at the comparison between what the models predicted and the actual temperatures:

Source: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/

Pretty much all of them were significantly too high and none of them predicted the current pause in global warming, despite of the continued increase in CO2 concentration.

Frankly, I have lost all trust in the climate 'science'. It appears as whether the understanding of the world's climate is only marginal (otherwise the models would be better, right?), while political agendas and commercial interests (poor countries demand money, companies in the renewable energy business want to sell their stuff) provide an excellent basis for alarmist, agenda driven 'science' and policy making.

 

[vintage cessna]

Strictly speaking it depends on where in the atmosphere we're talking about. Down in the lower troposphere the GHGs transfer most of that absorbed energy to the atmosphere via collisions. High enough up, yes they're able to get rid of it by radiating and some of the radiation goes into space -- that's the planet's outgoing IR radiation that satellites can measure. Most - I'm pretty sure nearly all - of what goes back downward from up there is absorbed again (by other GHG molecules) before it reaches the surface.

Like I said earlier, "heating by re-radiation" is an oversimplification. Not sure why you're hung up on that, since the main point is that some of the radiant energy from the surface that would otherwise go straight into space is trapped. Some of it does indeed warm the surface - more by convection I think, not so much by radiation.

http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net

If you can keep an open mind, try reading this. Not too terribly long.

 

[vintage cessna]

No, they have high confidence that (a) the physics behind the models is essentially correct and (b) despite the differences in assumptions between them, they all (AFAIK) predict measurable warming.

As in, you make the temps a function of the CO2 level without putting any physics in? That would be GIGO. You really have to think the people doing this stuff are complete frauds to believe that's what is going on.

I'm not convinced he's proven anything, much less what you say the current explanation of the greenhouse effect is. If anything, he's quite inadvertently shown that radiation trapping IS significant even in a greenhouse. But I'd have to read the rest of his article to be sure about that.

Fraud? Why would I suspect fraud? I think this guy from Berkeley does though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk

Oh, and the IPCC response.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vag1_9EySCg

 

[vintage cessna]

That's a cop out. If you have a source for your claim (which is an extraordinary one, since it would be a revolutionary finding if true), then it's on you to furnish it if you want your claim to be taken seriously. Lots of people say lots of completely false and even crazy things on the internet. If I chased every one of them I would have no time left for my own work.

Greenhouse Effect on the Moon

Here is the discovery you said would be revolutionary. Before you call this guy an outlier, read the paragraph where he quotes the NASA analysis of an experiment that was conducted on the moon. I found the quotation, word for word, in a NASA document that discusses various experiments conducted on the moon. This revolutionary discovery has been known for a long time.

http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/Greenhouse_Effect_on_the_Moon.pdf

 

[Gary F]

Here's an interesting brief video.

 

[write-stuff]

Nicely done video. At approximately 2:20, the narrator makes an argument that I'm not sure I agree with. As pilots, we all understand the physics of temp/dewpoint/saturation and clouds. He, while stating the case of AGW opponents, says that more water vapor (a feedback product accepted by both sides) creates more clouds. I know where he's going with this. More clouds increases the earth's albedo and has a cooling effect. His mistake is that more water vapor does NOT automatically increase cloud cover as they are a product of temperature vs. dewpoint. Those are additional variables that are also changing.

Next, the video from roughly 3:00 to 4:50 claims to discredit some climate models. It shows a graph of temperature changes over the period in black. The black plot shows a relatively flat mean line and is labeled "Reality". Unfortunately for this video, other temperature graphs for this same time period show a different "reality". I pulled these from popular "climate skeptic" websites so no one can say I picked "friendly" data. The comparisons of the graphs are shown below. (I need to get back to work, but will look at the rest of the video later. So far, it seems to strike out on its first two points.)

 

[CharlieTango]

Nicely done video. At approximately 2:20, the narrator makes an argument that I'm not sure I agree with. As pilots, we all understand the physics of temp/dewpoint/saturation and clouds. He, while stating the case of AGW opponents, says that more water vapor (a feedback product accepted by both sides) creates more clouds. I know where he's going with this. More clouds increases the earth's albedo and has a cooling effect. His mistake is that more water vapor does NOT automatically increase cloud cover as they are a product of temperature vs. dewpoint. Those are additional variables that are also changing.

Next, the video from roughly 3:00 to 4:50 claims to discredit some climate models. It shows a graph of temperature changes over the period in black. The black plot shows a relatively flat mean line and is labeled "Reality". Unfortunately for this video, other temperature graphs for this same time period show a different "reality". I pulled these from popular "climate skeptic" websites so no one can say I picked "friendly" data. The comparisons of the graphs are shown below. (I need to get back to work, but will look at the rest of the video later. So far, it seems to strike out on its first two points.)

Maybe you don't see where he is going. The point is that the warming due to CO2 becomes amplified by a factor of 3 in the models. The author is pointing out that this warming and amplification has not occurred your argument doesn't dispute that but rather tries to explain why the amplification didn't occur.

Next you show versions of HadCRUT data that has additional adjustments and call it from AGW opposing website. Now you are going to argue that Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office and Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the niversity of East Anglia are the AGW opposition?

After watching the video you should at least understand that the argument is about the amplification as well as which side the current data supports if not who the players are.

 

[CharlieTango]

The National Park Service is actually training Rangers, who then force the issue on visitors.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...s-Also-Get-Federal-Lectures-on-Climate-Change

 

[write-stuff]

Maybe you don't see where he is going. The point is that the warming due to CO2 becomes amplified by a factor of 3 in the models.

Nope. Reread what I said. No mention of feedback/amplification. After my point about the clouds, my ONLY point was that the video's graph of recorded timeseries data does not match other plots of the same data. That is a pretty huge problem that you skated right past.

The author is pointing out that this warming and amplification has not occurred your argument doesn't dispute that but rather tries to explain why the amplification didn't occur.

Look at the graphs again (not the one in the video) and tell me that warming has not occurred. And nope, again. I make NO argument regarding whether or not amplification occurred. You read NONE of this in my argument, you made it up yourself.

Next you show versions of HadCRUT data that has additional adjustments and call it from AGW opposing website. Now you are going to argue that Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office and Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the niversity of East Anglia are the AGW opposition?

These charts, AS I SAID, were used by popular "climate skeptic" websites. They used this data to support various anti-AGW arguments of their own. The only thing goofy here seems to be your reading ability.

 

[azure]

http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net

If you can keep an open mind, try reading this. Not too terribly long.

I got as far as section 2.3. That paper is so full of strawman arguments and blatant misconceptions that I'm not going to waste my time reading the rest of it. Just a couple of examples:

Thus the distribution of heat between the atmosphere and the surface of the earth, with which it has thermal contact, cannot be correctly calculated using the radiative transfer equations derived from Boltzmann (1884) because the thermal contact of these bodies makes this a question of Fourier's Law.

This is completely false. Yes thermal contact makes a difference and there is convective exchange of energy between surface and atmosphere - but that doesn't mean that radiative transfer is unimportant. In fact the "back-radiation" from the atmosphere is measurable and has been measured -- something like 340 W/m2 IIRC. It's an essential part of the surface energy balance.

Thus, radiation heating the surface is re-emitted to heat the atmosphere and then re-emitted by the atmosphere back to accumulate yet more heat at the earth's surface. Physicists such as Gerlich & Tscheuschner (2007 and 2009) are quick to point out that this is a perpetuum mobile of the second kind - a type of mechanism that creates energy from nothing.

Not only is it NOT a perpetuum mobile of the second kind -- as I said earlier, the net heat flow is still from the surface to the atmosphere -- but this guy is confusing his kinds of perpetuum mobile. A "2nd kind" doesn't create energy from nothing, it causes a net heat flow from cooler to warmer without doing work. He's thinking of the 1st kind.

Then he goes on to spew some nonsense that you can't have more energy radiated from the surface than is available from the Sun. Of course you can, if that energy is partly absorbed in the atmosphere. What you can't have is more energy radiated from the top of the atmosphere than is received from the Sun, without an internal source of energy.

As I understand the accepted solutions to the radiative transfer equations, each layer of the atmosphere is in balance so that energy in equals energy out. This stuff has been carefully worked out. Papers that accuse the experts of making student mistakes are usually crackpot papers. Not worth my time reading, except as an exercise in "what's wrong with this argument".

 

[Gary F]

I don't think some here realize the severe limitations of climate models. There system is far too complex to describe with software. To get around gaps in understanding climate scientists have had to make many assumptions. The ability of models to predict results in the short term has been abysmal so why should I believe that they can predict conditions decades in the future?

I studied mathematical modeling of electronic systems as both an undergraduate and graduate student in electrical engineering. Even relatively simple circuits restricted to linear ranges could be difficult to model. The complexity increases dramatically as the number of components increases. In modeling climate we would need to incorporate an unbelievable number of data points where components often interact in a non linear and unpredictable fashion.

Many climate scientists are completely dependent on government funding for their livelihood. Political bias can have a large impact on the awarding of grants. As long as the scientist's conclusions support the desires of the politicians the money will keep flowing.

 

[N801BH]

I don't think some here realize the severe limitations of climate models. There system is far to complex to describe with software. To get around gaps in understanding climate scientists have had to make many assumptions. The ability of models to predict results in the short term has been abysmal so why should I believe that they can predict conditions decades in the future?

I studied mathematical modeling of electronic systems as both an undergraduate and graduate student in electrical engineering. Even relatively simple circuits restricted to linear ranges could be difficult to model. The complexity increases dramatically as the number of components increases. In modeling climate we would need to incorporate an unbelievable number of data points where components often interact in a non linear and unpredictable fashion.

Many climate scientists are completely dependent on government funding for their livelihood. Political bias can have a large impact on the awarding of grants. As long as the scientist's conclusions support the desires of the politicians the money will keep flowing.

Yup.. That is exactly what has got us in this MMGW mess now...

 

[azure]

Greenhouse Effect on the Moon

Here is the discovery you said would be revolutionary. Before you call this guy an outlier, read the paragraph where he quotes the NASA analysis of an experiment that was conducted on the moon. I found the quotation, word for word, in a NASA document that discusses various experiments conducted on the moon. This revolutionary discovery has been known for a long time.

http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/Greenhouse_Effect_on_the_Moon.pdf

Yes I'm sure it's been known for a long time. Which is a pretty good indication that there is NOTHING revolutionary here. He is trying to argue that the effective temperature of the Moon is higher than predicted by the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. There's a few things wrong with it, but the main problem is that he is only talking about an "average" temperature (and not even estimating that very well) and you can get a different predicted "average" temperature depending on whether or not you include the effect of the ground temporarily storing heat, without changing the "effective" temperature (i.e. the blackbody temperature).

I'd be surprised if NASA's preliminary calculations even tried to include this effect. They had no real idea of the lunar surface physical properties before Apollo 11 - even the fine dust of the regolith was a surprise IIRC. Doesn't mean there is something wrong with our understanding of radiative transfer, much less that the Moon has a greenhouse effect.

In short, another "crackpot" paper. Seriously, if you want to be a skeptic you should RUN from papers like this. People who know physics - like Lindzen for example - will laugh at this stuff. Don't waste your time with this crap.

 

[Henning]

More B.S. Even the alarmists admit we could shut down fossil fuel use today and it MIGHT save .3 degrees of warming over the next 100 years.

In another twenty years we'll look back on this and laugh at it for the stupidity it is.

In twenty years we will either have made the evolutionary step in social consciousness that is required of us by God and started acting on that, or in the midst of our extinction volley if we launch nukes, or fall to the next Dark Ages if we don't. The choices are ours, and I don't see us making the right choices, the only real question is which will we choose, Dark Ages or total destruction.

 

[vintage cessna]

Yes I'm sure it's been known for a long time. Which is a pretty good indication that there is NOTHING revolutionary here. He is trying to argue that the effective temperature of the Moon is higher than predicted by the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. There's a few things wrong with it, but the main problem is that he is only talking about an "average" temperature (and not even estimating that very well) and you can get a different predicted "average" temperature depending on whether or not you include the effect of the ground temporarily storing heat, without changing the "effective" temperature (i.e. the blackbody temperature).

I'd be surprised if NASA's preliminary calculations even tried to include this effect. They had no real idea of the lunar surface physical properties before Apollo 11 - even the fine dust of the regolith was a surprise IIRC. Doesn't mean there is something wrong with our understanding of radiative transfer, much less that the Moon has a greenhouse effect.



In short, another "crackpot" paper. Seriously, if you want to be a skeptic you should RUN from papers like this. People who know physics - like Lindzen for example - will laugh at this stuff. Don't waste your time with this crap.

Really, your own posts demonstrate that you are not even sure how the Greenhouse Effect works. Again, most of your arguments are ad hominem, and arguments of authority. You miss the whole point of the paper, which is that neither the moon or the Earth behave like a black body, an assumption of the equation. Makes perfect sense since they aren't actually Black Bodies. You are so blinded by personal bias that you won't even admit that blatant fraud has been committed. You rely on computer models where the outcome is determined before you even have the results.

These guys are "crackpots", yet the models where the "real" physics and math are plugged in can't get it right, but there is always an excuse why it is not right. Does it ever occur to them that maybe they don't have it right. Instead of calling them crackpots, why don't you label them heretics, that would be more appropriate.

The real crackpots are in the MMGW crowd who have abandoned the scientific method completely.

 

[vintage cessna]

Yes I'm sure it's been known for a long time. Which is a pretty good indication that there is NOTHING revolutionary here. He is trying to argue that the effective temperature of the Moon is higher than predicted by the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. There's a few things wrong with it, but the main problem is that he is only talking about an "average" temperature (and not even estimating that very well) and you can get a different predicted "average" temperature depending on whether or not you include the effect of the ground temporarily storing heat, without changing the "effective" temperature (i.e. the blackbody temperature).

I'd be surprised if NASA's preliminary calculations even tried to include this effect. They had no real idea of the lunar surface physical properties before Apollo 11 - even the fine dust of the regolith was a surprise IIRC. Doesn't mean there is something wrong with our understanding of radiative transfer, much less that the Moon has a greenhouse effect.

In short, another "crackpot" paper. Seriously, if you want to be a skeptic you should RUN from papers like this. People who know physics - like Lindzen for example - will laugh at this stuff. Don't waste your time with this crap.

You obviously didn't read the paper carefully. He doesn't just talk about average temperatures. What NASA discovered AND stated, is that their calculations, using the standard equation that is still used today, were wrong because the moon did not behave like a black body. Your own statement that NASA did not know about surface properties makes the point. Of course the properties of an actual 3 dimensional bodies make a difference in whether an object retains any heat or just re radiates 100% back out like a fictional black body. The moon was 20c cooler during the day than a black body would be because some of the heat was retained by the moon and not 100% radiated back out. Temperatures did not peak at solar noon, and the night temps were 60c warmer because the moon was releasing heat at night. Do you actually think that the Earth, that has oceans and an atmosphere would behave like a black body?

 

[vintage cessna]

Are you getting what I'm saying. Your Greenhouse theory, that relies on the absorption of infared by CO2 and re emission by the CO2 was disproven in 1909.

We are supposedly at 59F instead of -18F on Earth because an equation, that assumes the Earth will behave like a fictional black body, says so.

NEWS FLASH.... The Earth is not a black body and neither is the moon. Both of their parents were three dimensional.

 

[vintage cessna]

Let me state it another way. The equation assumes the Earth behaves like a fictional 2 dimensional black body. A black body radiates out 100 % of radiation received in . It stores nothing.

The equation says the Earth's mean temp should be -18F, but the actual mean temp of the Earth is 59F. Supposedly, the reason we are at 59F and not -18F is due entirely to the Greenhouse Effect. The moon has no atmosphere, and so no Greenhouse effect. The discrepancy in temps of the calculated black body temp and actual temp of the moon is due to surface properties of the moon that retain heat and release it later. Do you suppose that some of the discrepancy between -18F and 59F on Earth is due to surface properties of the Earth and not entirely to the Greenhouse Effect?

 

[azure]

You obviously didn't read the paper carefully. He doesn't just talk about average temperatures. What NASA discovered AND stated, is that their calculations, using the standard equation that is still used today, were wrong because the moon did not behave like a black body. Your own statement that NASA did not know about surface properties makes the point. Of course the properties of an actual 3 dimensional bodies make a difference in whether an object retains any heat or just re radiates 100% back out like a fictional black body. The moon was 20c cooler during the day than a black body would be because some of the heat was retained by the moon and not 100% radiated back out. Temperatures did not peak at solar noon, and the night temps were 60c warmer because the moon was releasing heat at night. Do you actually think that the Earth, that has oceans and an atmosphere would behave like a black body?

The surface properties I was referring to have to do with how well the surface layers conduct heat and how much the temperature changes for a given input of heat (heat capacity). Those properties don't determine whether an object radiates like a blackbody. An object radiates like a blackbody if it radiates a total energy per unit time per unit area equal to sigma x T^4 where sigma is the S-B constant. It doesn't have to radiate all of the energy incident on it, it can store some of that energy. NASA's calculations were probably wrong not because the Moon isn't a blackbody but because it can store some of that heat just below the surface. So their model didn't correctly predict the surface temperature over the course of a day, but the real surface temperature as a function of time still is such that the surface radiates away the same amount of energy, averaged over a day, as they assumed it did.

Something else you're missing is that an object can behave as a blackbody very well at one wavelength and very poorly at others. The Earth and Moon are obviously not blackbodies at visible wavelengths, so if they were as hot as the Sun, the blackbody approximation would be a very bad one. In the IR, where they emit most of their radiation, it's a very good one.

 

[vintage cessna]

CO2 is a trace element has in the atmosphere. It absorbs infared and re emits it in omnidirectional. That means only about 1/4 is directed back towards Earth. Do you think this feedback could actually account for 77F warming? In the Robert Wood experiment, you can't detect any measurable warming. If there is this warming feedback from CO2, it is so small we are not able to measure with current instruments within the margin of error.

 

[vintage cessna]

The surface properties I was referring to have to do with how well the surface layers conduct heat and how much the temperature changes for a given input of heat (heat capacity). Those properties don't determine whether an object radiates like a blackbody. An object radiates like a blackbody if it radiates a total energy per unit time per unit area equal to sigma x T^4 where sigma is the S-B constant. It doesn't have to radiate all of the energy incident on it, it can store some of that energy. NASA's calculations were probably wrong not because the Moon isn't a blackbody but because it can store some of that heat just below the surface. So their model didn't correctly predict the surface temperature over the course of a day, but the real surface temperature as a function of time still is such that the surface radiates away the same amount of energy, averaged over a day, as they assumed it did.

Something else you're missing is that an object can behave as a blackbody very well at one wavelength and very poorly at others. The Earth and Moon are obviously not blackbodies at visible wavelengths, so if they were as hot as the Sun, the blackbody approximation would be a very bad one. In the IR, where they emit most of their radiation, it's a very good one.

I guess you can't see the illogic of your argument. Just like the rest of the MMGW people, you don't give a hoot for the empirical evidence. If it doesn't fit the theory, blow it off, and try to confuse and make it as complicated as possible.

 

[azure]

Let me state it another way. The equation assumes the Earth behaves like a fictional 2 dimensional black body. A black body radiates out 100 % of radiation received in . It stores nothing.

No. This is a misconception, and I'm not sure where you're getting it. I hesitate to say more... there is some deep confusion behind what you're saying but I can't put my finger on it.

A blackbody *absorbs* all of the energy incident on it and *radiates* according to the S-B law. The S-B law relates the rate at which it radiates to its *temperature*. If exposed to radiation, the object warms until it reaches an equilibrium where energy in equals energy out. That doesn't necessarily mean that it *radiates* all of the energy it receives, if some of that energy is leaving some other way (e.g. by thermal conduction).

Not sure if I'm getting at the source of your confusion... so I'll leave it there for now.

 

[N801BH]

No. This is a misconception, and I'm not sure where you're getting it. I hesitate to say more... there is some deep confusion behind what you're saying but I can't put my finger on it.

A blackbody *absorbs* all of the energy incident on it and *radiates* according to the S-B law. The S-B law relates the rate at which it radiates to its *temperature*. If exposed to radiation, the object warms until it reaches an equilibrium where energy in equals energy out. That doesn't necessarily mean that it *radiates* all of the energy it receives, if some of that energy is leaving some other way (e.g. by thermal conduction).

Not sure if I'm getting at the source of your confusion... so I'll leave it there for now.

Ok you two......

get a hotel room,, work out your issues..

kiss and make up .....

 

[vintage cessna]

Azure, do you agree or disagree with this statement. The Earth is 33C warmer than accepted calculations , and this is due entirely to a Greenhouse Effect of some sort? Exact mechanism doesn't matter.